Efficacy of Amitriptyline in the Treatment of Subjective Tinnitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effect of amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, on patients with subjective tinnitus. The study group consisted of 37 adult patients admitted to the Ear, Nose, and Throat and Audiology Department of Hacettepe University. The amitriptyline group consisted of 20 patients and the placebo group consisted of 17 patients. All of the patients were evaluated using a questionnaire, audiologic evaluation, high-frequency audiometry, impedancemetric tests, auditory brainstem response, tinnitus frequency, and loudness matching assessed by audiometric methods at the beginning and end of the study. The patients in the amitriptyline group received 50 mg/day amitriptyline in the first week and 100 mg/day for the following 5 weeks. In the placebo group, the patients received tablets consisting of lactose starch for 6 weeks, with a dosage of 1 tablet/day. The subjective complaints of the patients in the amitriptyline group decreased, and the "present" symptoms resulted in fewer complaints. The severity of tinnitus decreased in the amitriptyline group by means of subjective and audiometric methods. In the placebo group, no significant change was observed. The success of treatment was 95% in the amitriptyline group and 12% in the placebo group. Amitriptyline therapy was concluded to be effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".